How to ask a Horary Question!

Clinton Soule · Sep 4, 2013

tsmall said:

Quote:Originally Posted by Clinton Soule
Tsmall stated:

Yes, and believe it or Not there are many with web sites putting out such wrong data that it is the time the querant asked the query and their location, I mean we need rulings from horary precedents like Lilly and the Ancients.

What does Guildo Bonatti say?

Zael?

Originally Posted by Clinton Soule
Then you admit there is No Traditional source who did such?

Is it possible that this is a Moderne Technique that is Not valid?

Tsmall:
I don't think it's fair to ask someone admittedly not well versed (sorry poyi, this isn't meant against you at all) in traditional methods to confirm or deny your statement.

To answer the question, you are correct...there is no traditional source who did such. At least not that we have extant that I've seen or heard of. The real question, which is why we need to use reason and logic, is...why?

Let's first start with this. Who gets to ask questions of the Universe? Is it only astrologers who can do so? I think not. Anyone has the ability to ask a question of the Universe, but not every one has the ability to understand the language of the stars. An astrologer is merely an interpreter.

One of the qualifications of being such an interpreter in the past was the ability to cast a chart...the question is born (think the reference to natal charts as the births of people, and mundane charts as the births of nations, and event charts as the birth of the event...horary is the birth of a question.) when someone who understands the question and has the ability to cast the chart first does so.

In the time of Lilly, or Zael, or Valens or Dorotheus or Paulus or Abu Mashar...or any one of a hundred members of the Dead Astrologer's Society, casting a chart was a pretty big undertaking requiring an awful lot of advanced knowledge in order to do so by hand.

Today, who can cast the chart, that is, who can directly query the Universe? Anyone with access to a chart casting program...regardless of his/her ability or inability to actually understand the answer.

Red added by yours trully!

That is the whole point, most who struggle to be a committed traditionalists, to try to perfect their horary skills, respecting their elders who are the fore-fathers of horary, realize that the Modernes have made the mistake of utilizing Outer planets as they misunderstood the Ancients and those in Lilly's time, wrote books upon it, and spread their confusion and now an army of those from the Mod Squad are on the Band wagon touting the Mod veiws of which the Mods misunderstood and others adopted as gospel.

I'm Not speaking of this Mod Squad :lol:

:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0-XrZoHj2k

But these Mod Squad members:

John Gadbury, Yohaness Kepler, Marc Edmund Jones, Barbara Watters, Marion March, Joan McEvers, etc....

The previous authors cited, I in no way mean as a putdown of their work, but in the same vein as devout horary students of today state that William F. Lilly misunderstood Claudius Ptolemy's Table of Essential Dignities and his 4th house query on 'Master B's House.., as I myself wish to erradicate fallacies of horary from my practice even if greats of horary's past are iconic enough that they have been given prestige and acclaimed as knowing the art when they missed certain points!

I mean should we invent concepts or pass on wrong data for others to be further confused upon?

IE. If we live exactly 71 and 2/3 years as I understand is one degree in the Precession of the Equinox, or 1/30th of a sign of the age we have incarnated in, and we observe certain phenomena as Lilly

saw that Saturn in the 9th was typically an atheistic type individul in natal and horary work he had found, does our small amount of data we recorded have substantial statistical weight to pass on to the coming horary generations?

I mean none of the natal Saturns in the 9th I have on record are anything close to atheistic!

I mean Tsmall and others reading this thread, is it possible that those who are spreading this data could be further confusing the horary scientic community by stating such contrary to the words of Traditionalism?
.

tsmall · Sep 4, 2013

Clinton Soule said:
That is the whole point, most who struggle to be a committed traditionalists, to try to perfect their horary skills, respecting their elders who are the fore-fathers of horary, realize that the Modernes have made the mistake of utilizing Outer planets as they misunderstood the Ancients and those in Lilly's time, wrote books upon it, and spread their confusion and now an army of those from the Mod Squad are on the Band wagon touting the Mod veiws of which the Mods misunderstood and others adopted as gospel.

You need to stop freaking out about this. Seriously, it does not matter how others practice horary. It only matters how you practice it, and that what you practice works for you. As in gives correct answers.

Do yourself a favor, if you really are committed to learning traditional astrology, and get yourself a copy of Benjamin Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology.

Clinton Soule said:
I mean should we invent concepts or pass on wrong data for others to be further confused upon?

There is a difference between inventing concepts and understanding which charts are or are not valid. If you feel better not using the chart posted by the querent because the querent isn't able to read it, then by all means recast every chart you read for the moment you understood the question. Again, if you get good results (as in correct answers) by doing this, then what do you care what others do or don't do?

Clinton Soule said:
IE. If we live exactly 71 and 2/3 years as I understand is one degree in the Precession of the Equinox, or 1/30th of a sign of the age we have incarnated in, and we observe certain phenomena as Lilly saw that Saturn in the 9th was typically an atheistic type individul in natal and horary work he had found, does our small amount of data we recorded have substantial statistical weight to pass on to the coming horary generations?

I mean none of the natal Saturns in the 9th I have on record are anything close to atheistic!

You are all over the place here. Lilly may have said that Saturn in the 9th was typically an atheistic type (I don't know if he did or not) but let's parse this out. What does "typically" mean? Does it mean always? It doesn't. Was Lilly's CA written for astrologey students? It was. We have a word for that modernly...it is called cook book astrology. Cook books have their place, but one must read them with that in mind. I don't know exactly what Lilly did say, but I'm sure he would have said what we all say..it takes a whole chart. Saturn in the 9th in one chart is not Saturn in the 9th in another.

Clinton Soule said:
I mean Tsmall and others reading this thread, is it possible that those who are spreading this data could be further confusing the horary scientic community by stating such contrary to the words of Traditionalism?
.

Let me make sure I understand. You are saying that because I said that a chart cast by someone who can't read it is still valid, and because I further confirmed that I have seen nothing about that in the texts (while giving a very logical and rational explanation as to why they didn't write about...as in, it was impossible and so therefore likely never crossed an ancient astrologer's mind that they should directly address it...since they were so <ahem> clear about everthing else <not>) that I could be further confusing the horary scientic community (what exactly is that? Is there a membership card for it or something?) by stating something contrary to the words of Traditionalism?

I'm not stating anything contrary to the words of traditionalism, because there are no words of traditionalism about this particular issue. The texts don't deal with charts cast by people who can't read them, but neither do they explicity state that you cannot read a chart that you didn't cast yourself for the moment you understood the question.

Clinton Soule · Sep 5, 2013

Tsmall stated:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton Soule
That is the whole point, most who struggle to be a committed traditionalists, to try to perfect their horary skills, respecting their elders who are the fore-fathers of horary, realize that the Modernes have made the mistake of utilizing Outer planets as they misunderstood the Ancients and those in Lilly's time, wrote books upon it, and spread their confusion and now an army of those from the Mod Squad are on the Band wagon touting the Mod veiws of which the Mods misunderstood and others adopted as gospel.

You need to stop freaking out about this. Seriously, it does not matter how others practice horary. It only matters how you practice it, and that what you practice works for you. As in gives correct answers.

Well as you said in the post prior to this, '...there is no traditional accounts of this practice!'

And I'm Not freaking out, it is the same malady as those who use Outers and John Frawley's usage of Outers yet Not ruling house cusps or the matter!

Or like Bob Zemco's observation that so many so-called Trads misunderstand the Early and Late Asc., either they do understand or they understand enough to confuse the teachings, yet have missed certain points! :surprised:

Tsmall:

Originally Posted by Clinton Soule
I mean should we invent concepts or pass on wrong data for others to be further confused upon?

Tsmall:
There is a difference between inventing concepts and understanding which charts are or are not valid. If you feel better not using the chart posted by the querent because the querent isn't able to read it, then by all means recast every chart you read for the moment you understood the question. Again, if you get good results (as in correct answers) by doing this, then what do you care what others do or don't do?

Red added by yours truly!

That is Not my point!

Most Trads understand that the Modernes have invented or thought the usage of Outers is proper as they did not happen to have the data prior to 1700 of the Outers. But that is Not traditionalism by any early sources! :bandit:

It is in this same manner I address this issue as Outers are Not Traditional and ***IF*** there are no writtings to support this by pre-1700 authors it must Not be Traditional as well!

Tsmall:

Let me make sure I understand. You are saying that because I said that a chart cast by someone who can't read it is still valid, and because I further confirmed that I have seen nothing about that in the texts (while giving a very logical and rational explanation as to why they didn't write about...as in, it was impossible and so therefore likely never crossed an ancient astrologer's mind that they should directly address it...since they were so <ahem> clear about everthing else <not>) that I could be further confusing the horary scientic community (what exactly is that? Is there a membership card for it or something?) by stating something contrary to the words of Traditionalism?

Tsmall, I have a few hypothesis or theories just as I'm certain they had about such things as Outers, etc., yet possibly like the Trad writters prior to 1700 there are reasons they didn't deviate as you have stated.

Like Lilly deviates, I'm certain others May Agree when he uses the time he first hears of a rumour for 3rd house matters and the time someone is known to lay down in their sickbeb for 6th house matters. This is confusing and as I understand it deviates from the consistency of the time he understands a query.

I understand the confusion and question the method, that is all I'm saying!

It's like Bob Zemco's comment about that Bonatus and other pre-1700 writters allowed queries to be asked more than once under certain conditions. But I have Not yet read of this or seen any post this methodology by the Ancients or the page numbers of the source; Academic Honesty goes further that 3rd house rumours!

.

tsmall · Sep 5, 2013

BobZemco said:
Bonatti defines it very clearly.

The Rules are The Rules.

The first step in Horary is to receive the Question.

The second step is to cast the chart.

Step #3 is identifying the Hour Ruler.

Step #4 is using the Hour Ruler -- that you identified in Step #3 --- to determine if the chart is Radical.

A non-Radical Chart cannot be read.

Note that Strictures have nothing to do with whether or not a chart is Radical. Strictures are merely advisories and warnings to the astrologer to very carefully weigh all factors, as it relates to the Stricture.

There is no rule or stricture that says the person who casts the chart has to be the astrologer (although it is generally accepted that we don't ask our own questions, this has more to do with how subjective we are if the chart is our own..meaning that we are less likely to come to the correct, objective answer.) There is also no rule or stricture that says the astrologer has to be able to read the chart...and look at how many examples we see here of that.

You are familiar with my lawsuit chart. Would you say that chart is invalid, since I wasn't able to clearly read it on my own when I cast it?

Clinton Soule · Sep 10, 2013

Tsmall stated:

There is no rule or stricture that says the person who casts the chart has to be the astrologer (although it is generally accepted that we don't ask our own questions, this has more to do with how subjective we are if the chart is our own..meaning that we are less likely to come to the correct, objective answer.) There is also no rule or stricture that says the astrologer has to be able to read the chart...and look at how many examples we see here of that.

Blue added by yours truly who happens to agape Tsmall and sincerily respects her integrity!

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7778

From Post #11 on this particular thread via skyscript.co.uk

William Lilly, CA, beginning p. 166:

"Of the time of receiving any Q U E S T I O N.

It hath been disputed largely amongst the Arabians, who
were excellent in the resolution of Horary Questions, what
time the Astrologer should take for the ground of his Question,
whether that time when the Querent first comes into ones
House or Closet, or first salutes the Artist, whether that is to be
admitted for the most proper time or erecting a Figure, and
giving Judgement thereupon. Though some have consented to
this opinion, yet I could never be satisfied herein either with
reason or experience: for let us admit one comes to demands a
Resolution of me, and we converse together a good while; but
in the end, some occasion intervenes, and we depart: I hope
no sound Judgment will allow of this time to be the Radix of a
Question (whenas none is really demanded) viz. at what time
he first saw me, or entered my house and speake with me.
"

part of it SNIPPED in order Not to repeat!

NOTE: LIlly if accurate says Bonatus, whom Bob Zemco admires took a certain stand:

...This way and manner have I practised, and found successe answerable: And
whereas Bonatus and some others doe give warning that the Astrologian judge not his owne Question,
and say he cannot tell how to accept of a question from himselfe; this I conceive was
his reason, Because he thought the Artist would be partiall to himselfe in his judgment:
Verily I am of a contrary opinion and have found by many experiments, that at what ....

The entire Lilly quote is on this thread, in three different posts to comply with the 100 word boundary of quotes:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67498
.

tsmall · Sep 10, 2013

Clinton Soule said:
Tsmall stated:

Blue added by yours truly who happens to agape Tsmall and sincerily respects her integrity!

I'm reading agape for agree, but I thank you just the same.

In reading your whole post, you are so almost there. Remember I asked you if my thread/chart reagrding my lawsuit was not valid because I posed the question myself, even though I know that it isn't a good idea to ask our own questions? And remember as well that on that thread I said that I meditated on the question for weeks, and when it arrived full blown and desperate for an answer that could be provided no other way, I noted the date, time, and place...then forwarded that information to another friend who is an horary astrologer? After which, I waited three days until I cast the chart to see for myself.

This is my point. We are allowed to query the Universe ourselves, and erect the chart for the moment of the birth of the question. If we are completely honest, then we will realize that either we are too subjective to answer it ourselves (remember Master B's House?) correctly, or that we lack the necessary skills to do so. A beginning student, for example, does not understand the nuances of chart interpretation, and won't without trial and error. That does not make his/her questions and subsequent charts less valid.

Clinton Soule · Sep 10, 2013

Tsmall:

I'm reading agape for agree....

I'm in no way an authority on the Greek language, as neither was Lilly who took Coley's interpretation of Bonatus as I understand, as my Christian Pastors taught Agape is greek for the God Love, which I astrologically interpret as Uranus providing he is not in perverse aspects or placements. Like the one who loved Mary his Mother, and Mary Magdalene(whom was never a prostitute as the RC Church wrongly claimed), and whom loved Simon Peter, Pontius Pilate, and Herod!

Like I have to love Agape Anton Lavey, and everyone down here! :innocent:

Eros is sexual love.

Phileo is brotherly love.

Tsmall:

.....Remember I asked you if my thread/chart reagrding my lawsuit was not valid because I posed the question myself, even though I know that it isn't a good idea to ask our own questions? And remember as well that on that thread I said that I meditated on the question for weeks, and when it arrived full blown and desperate for an answer that could be provided no other way, I noted the date, time, and place...then forwarded that information to another friend who is an horary astrologer? After which, I waited three days until I cast the chart to see for myself.

Well Lilly says yes according to the resent posted extract from CA, but Guildo said NO!

And Lilly really missed his 4th house query on 'Master B's houses...' as Bonatti warned '...can't ask your own query and do the map..' according to recent Lilly document from CA from skyscript thread!

Lilly was a great horary artist, and Tsmall is greater than she thinks she is, and Lilly did do his on despite that Bonatus said no way according to the prior document if Lilly understood Bonatus correctly!

So since you are an artist it is Yea according to Lilly, yet Nay if Lilly understood Bonatti correctly!

But Liily complicates this as in his 3rd house query on rumours and 6th house query about the time the patient lays down; contradictions indeed!

No wonder our Libra positions are weighing the balance of truth!
.

Clinton Soule · Sep 27, 2013

I'm not certain upon this but maybe another plus of the astrologer casting the horary is the ability to see the querant's description as in:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/frawley.html

...One sets the chart and finds the answer 'instantly', according to William Lilly, one of ... moles or scars (all deduced from the chart), and finally judging the chart and ...

Has anyone tried this when the querant casts the horary?

.

Clinton Soule · Sep 28, 2013

See:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84068#84068

The problem I'm still having about this is when are we going out on a limb from the traditional tree trunk on branches that may Not lend us enough support.

I mean Lilly based much of his work upon Bonatti and others and studied the Ancients. Yet even he deviated some as in:

CA pp. 166-167

"Of the time of receiving any QUESTION"

Quote:This way and manner have I practised, and found successe answerable: And whereas Bonatus and some others doe give warning that the Astrologian judge not his owne Question, and say he cannot tell
how to accept of a question from himselfe; this I conceive was his reason, Because he thought the Artist would be partiall to himselfe in his judgment: Verily I am of a contrary opinion and have found by many experiments, that at what hour the

167
mind or intention of the Astrologer is heavily perplexed with, or concerning the successe of any matter wherein himselfe is really concerned, I say he may with great reason accept of that hour for the true time of erecting his Scheame of Heaven, and
he may (if not partiall) as well judge of that Figure erected by himselfe, as of any other; but herein I advised him to lay aside all love and partiality unto his owne Cause."

I mean unless Lilly borrowed this from another Traditional source, author pre-1700, other than a few like Gadbury or Kepler(Modernes), was he not deviating or inventing concepts that he found worked for him even if Bonatus had warned that it wasn't kosher to do so?

And is this is a sense going too near the tree of Modernism if he didn't have a Traditional source?

IE. John Gadbury deviated in placing some romantic queries in the 5th where Lilly always placed them in the 7th, or one in the 11th for hopes and wishes. Gadbury even deviated by placing money earned by a player in gambling games in the 5th unlike Lilly who only allowed that if one owned the tavern or establishment where the gambling took place, as Lilly always used the 2nd for the earned money house if the individual was earning money from gambling and Not the owner of the saloon.

I mean if Lilly doesn't have the ammunition through traditional sources wasn't this almost heredical in that he deviated unless he has a source from Traditional authors or Ancients?

Unfortunately, even with Lilly's great bibliography of authors that he borrowed from, he like many writers then and today, he failed to quote or give credit when he mentioned different concepts in his great works. Footnote possibly weren't required in books of that time and even today writers do not always adhere to academic honesty by citing each concept and footnoting the author, source, and page; Future Writers Take Note!

But who could he have borrowed this from that many of you may have already read that justifies his deviation from Guildo Bonatus about answering his own horary?

.

Clinton Soule · Sep 28, 2013

Evidently quite a few are unaware of the contrasting practice in this as in this thread: :rightful:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68043

post #34

Rafaella states:

I think Ilene, if you are going to read based on what Clinton is posting, you'll have to construct a third chart using your location and time for when, you the astrologer, first understood the question. This is what makes this thread so confusing when you bring a second and in my opinion invalid chart. Frankly, Clinton is not the only astrologer here, this is a public forum and querent posted her chart, there was no reason to produce a new chart at all and bring all this confusion. There is not just one astrologer, but many astrologers who have perhaps seen this chart but decided not to respond.

Click to expand...

Blue added by me because some obviously Does Not understand this was Not a practice of early Traditionalism!

Itallics added by yours truly, Rafaella I don't recall anyone twisting your arm stating you or anyone else couldn't post, no one has a gun pointed at anyone's head, but evidently a few of you have little idea why we have accepted this practice(that I've never encountered here until on this Forum of allowing or taking the time the querant asked the query) it was and is still so foreign to me, shocking you might say!

Perhaps a little history and the consensus of others may help on why one casts a chart when they do:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66689

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7778

From Post #11 on this particular thread via skyscript.co.uk

William Lilly, CA, beginning p. 166:

"Of the time of receiving any Q U E S T I O N.

It hath been disputed largely amongst the Arabians, who
were excellent in the resolution of Horary Questions, what
time the Astrologer should take for the ground of his Question,
whether that time when the Querent first comes into ones
House or Closet, or first salutes the Artist, whether that is to be
admitted for the most proper time or erecting a Figure, and
giving Judgement thereupon.
Though some have consented to this opinion, yet I could
never be satisfied herein either with reason or experience: for
let us admit one comes to demands a Resolution of me, and we
converse together a good while; but in the end, some occasion
intervenes, and we depart: I hope no sound Judgment will
allow of this time to be the Radix of a Question (whenas none
is really demanded) viz. at what time he first saw me, or entered
my house and speake with me.
."

Click to expand...

part of it SNIPPED in order Not to repeat!

Click to expand...

So Rafaella, if you haven't read the tread it is available for you and others to understand why some feel that some methods are in the dark!

Piscesgirl008 and Forum members, as I understand we base our art and science of horary upon the precedents of past authors. Most of the past writers prior to 1700 on horary, with exceptions of authors like Gadbury's 7th house and 5th deviations and Kepler's minor aspects which are Moderne, we call the pre-1700 authors Traditionalists, like Jupiter.

Robert Hand spoke of the Renaissance as having a detrimental effect upon astrology, pushing it into a pseudo science! Well I don't wish it to slide farther into a black hole and be recognized as a psycho-science, I think most of you will agree there is no astrology, no horary, without the input of the Traditional writers as our forefathers!

So there is no need for everyone to re-calculate the horary charts but if you read the threads you know there is divided opinion yet an iconic mentor, William F. Lilly and Guildo Bonatus laid a good foundation did they not!

Gracious students of astrology, was I not following the precepts of masters of horary on this query and do we truly want a horary that is like 'watch me pull a rabbit from my hat'!

Rafaella:

I read the question and understood the query much earlier than Clinton, it was perhaps 30 mins before Clinton looked at the chart, so in essence Clinton wasn't the first astrologer. I believe if the querent was coming to an astrologer and seeking private consultation, in that case by all means produce a new chart, but as we are in a public forum, querent's chart is perfectly alright and valid for everyone to interpret.

Click to expand...

That is our quagmire, the swamp, in that if interested should you by Lilly or Bonatus's guidelines have casts an independent horary on this?

I mean who started this querant concept can or should cast the horary, anyone know of the villain, because a lot of professing horary artists are advocating this and some are not!

Do your own web research and you'll see there is drastic division between current and Traditional sources!

.

Clinton Soule · Oct 1, 2013

This argument could prove very decisive in when is the time to cast the horscope as Lilly taught:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/texts.html

Lilly, William Christian Astrology, vols I & II 1647

Mithras93

http://mithras93.tripod.com/books/books.html

C:\Documents and Settings\all\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\3Z9T2EWE\CA-IIFinal[1].zip

Page 148, of CAII shows how to find the appearence oreinted data:

What Mark, Mole or Scarre the Querent Has in Any
Member of His Body.

I have many times admired at the verity hereof, and it hath been one maine argument of my engaging so farre in all the parts of Astrology, for very rarely shall you find these rules faile,

When you have upon any demand erected the Querent’s Figure, consider the Signe Ascending, what member of man’s body it represents, and tell the Querent he hath a Mole, Scarre or Marke on that part of his body represented by that Signe; as if the Signe Ascending be Taurus, it’s on the Neck: if in Gemini, on the Arms, &c., also in which of the 12 Signe of the Zodiac the Lord of the Ascendant is in, and in that member represented by that Signe, he or she hath another.

Then observe the Signe descending on the cusp of the 6th house, and what part of man’s body it personates, for in that member shall you find another; so shall you discover another in that member which is signified by the Signe wherein the Lord of the 6th is.

Last of all, consider what Signe the Moon is in, and what member of mans body it denotes, therein shall you also find a Mark, Mole or Scarre; if Saturn signifies the Mark, it’s a darkest, obscure, black one; if Mars, then it’s usually some Scarre or Cut if he be in a Fire Signe, or else in any other Signe, a red Mole; and you must always know, that if either the Signe, or the Planet signifying the Mole, Mark or Scar, be much afflicted, the Mark or Scarre is the greater and more eminent.

If the Signe be Masculine, and the Planet Masculine, the Mole or Scarre is on the right side of the body.

The contrary judge, if the Signe be Feminine, and the Lord thereof in a Feminine Signe.

If the Significator of the Scarre or Mole be above the earth, (that is, from the Cusp of the Ascendant to the Cusp of the 7th, as either in the 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th or 7th) the Mark is on the fore part of the body, or visible to the eye, or on the out-side of the member; but if the Significator be under the earth, viz., in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th, the Mole or Scarre is on the back part of the body, not visible, but on the inside of the member.

If few degrees of a Signe doe ascend, or if the Lord of the Signe be in a few degrees, the Mole, Mark or Scarre is in the upper part of the member; if the middle of the Signe ascend, or the Lord thereof in the middle, or neer the middle of the Signe, the Mole or Mark is so in the member, viz. in the middle: If the latter degrees ascend, or the Moon, or Lord of the 1st or 6th house be neer the last degrees of the Sign, the Mole Mark or Scarre is neere the lower part of the member.

If your Question be radicall, the time rightly taken, and the party enquiring be of sufficient age, or no Infant, you shall rarely find error in this rule: I have many times upon a sudden in company, trying this experiment upon some of the company, and ever found it true, as many in this city well know. In November and December, when Signes of short ascenscions are in the Ascendant, you must be wary, for in regard many times the Sun is not then visible, and Clocks may faile, it’s possible to be deceived, and misse of a right Ascendant, for Pisces and Aries doe each of them ascend in the space of 3 quarters of an hour, and some few minutes; Aquarius and Taurus in 1 hour and some odde minutes; but if you have the time of the day exact, you need not ever mistrust the verity of your Judgment: which will infinitely satisfie any that are students herein, and cause them to take great pleasure in the ART, and make them sensible, that there is as much sincerity in all the whole ART OF ASTROLOGIE, when it is rightly understood and practized, which at this day I must confesse it is by very few.

As these rules will hold certaine upon the body of every Querent, and in every question, so will they upon the body of the quesited, (mutatis, mutandis

as if one enquires somewhat concerning his Wife, then the Signe of the 7th house, and the Signe wherein the Lord of the 7th is, shall show the Woman’s Marks; so shall the Signe upon the Cusp of the 12th, for that is the 6th from the 7th, and the Signe wherein the Lord of the 12th is in, shew two more Moles or Marks of the woman.

Usually an Infortune in the Ascendant blemishes the Face with some Mole or Scarre according to his nature, for the 1st house signifies the Face, the 2nd the Neck, the 3rd the Arms and Shoulders, the 4th the Breast and Paps, the 5th the Heart, &c.. and so every house and Signe in order, according to succession; for what Signe soever is in the Ascendant, yet in every Question the 1st house represents the Face: Many times if the Moon be in Conjunction or Opposition of the Sun, the Querent hath some blemish or the like near one of his Eyes; and this is ever true, if the Opposition or Conjunction be in Angles, and either of them have any ill aspect to Mars.

And evidently an astrology school sees it the same way as in:

http://axacta.net/user/astrology-book/astrology-departments.php

Quote:
It frequently happens that a Figure is cast too soon, for an event that is dependent upon one or more indeterminate factors that have not sufficiently matured; ....SNIP.....A valid Horary Figure indicates the querent's birthmarks, and bodily deformities. This phase of Astrology is useful to prove whether the propounded question is radical, whether or not it conforms with the querent's Nativity in one or more important features, .....SNIP.....Even though divination by Horary Astrology is largely practised with surprising results by many who are too ignorant or too superficially-inclined to probe the arcana of the science of Nativities, .....SNIP......

.

How to ask a Horary Question!

Clinton Soule

Banned

tsmall

Clinton Soule

Banned

tsmall

Clinton Soule

Banned

tsmall

Clinton Soule

Banned

Clinton Soule

Banned

Clinton Soule

Banned

Clinton Soule

Banned

Clinton Soule

Banned